From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello. I think that the idea of an encyclopedia that is not neutral to all points of view, and instead is neutral to the facts is an extremely good idea. Wikipedia is frustrating to me in the fact that it discourages words such as "terroists", as said in the Conservapedia page, and has an overall, albeit slight, liberal bias.

The reason I am here

The reason I am here, and what I will try to achieve through my edits, is a sense of "professionalism", to sound like an encylopedia without compromising conservatism or the easy language. This will make it easier to be accepted and have our viewpoint accepted as a "serious" one without supporting liberalism. Part of this will be including, for controversial topics, the most common liberal responses to our viewpoint, and replies to those responses.


It is my opinion that, regarding politics or history, there is no such thing as "neutrality". Wikipedia, although it is fairly neutral, has a habit of leaning slightly and subtly towards liberalism. Conservatism is a very praiseworthy attempt to counter that tendency and show the facts as we see them. Naturally, liberals will(and have already) made an encylopedia to coutner us, but they must resort to smearing us while having very few, if any, actual facts behind them.

Rush Limbaugh

I am a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh, and any article I write is likely to be influenced by him. If this is a problem, I will leave immediately.


  • I am a Catholic.
  • I am an Old Earth Creationist. I believe that God could have created the universe in any way he wanted to, but that He created it so that human scientists could see the order in the universe and see that natural laws held everywhere.
  • I am a Ronald Regan conservative.